Well NCR Dollars are realistic, because they are an attempt to make a proper currency, and are using a pre-war model.

Click to expand...

Break up NCR NOW!

Bottlecaps can't last forever as a currency, because the only thing they've got going for them is being backed by water, which will lose value quickly at the rate water gets purified. Plus, it's unrealistic that the whole world would just happen to accept the same currency all at once.

Click to expand...

Bottlecaps aren't backed by water because they're only backed by water in the Hub. Bottlecaps are backed by the value ascribed to them by common trade as a medium of measurement in various regions.

And isn't it a little ironic that your saying "Show some originality guys" when by bringing in Bottlecaps, that's the exact opposite of what Bethesda is actually doing.

Click to expand...

Bottlecaps are awesome, NCR currency drools.

Getting back to Cthulhu Armageddon, so far we've got plenty of good reviews for it and I'm pleased by that.

Bottlecaps are backed by the value ascribed to them by common trade as a medium of measurement in various regions.

Click to expand...

Which makes zero sense.

Hub introduced bottlecaps as a practical currency in its region, but not as a permanent measure. NCR dollar devaluing bottlecap is absolutely logical and practical since money cannot be made just anywhere, and bottlecaps can. Well, not anywhere, but with proper tools counterfeits can be made far easier than you can counterfeit actual money.

However, the biggest problems pertains to the "various regions". There is no logic or reasoning that can explain how bottlecaps have, simultaneously, appeared as a currency throughout post-War America. Even Mr. House's explanation that his predictions about bottlecap becoming a standard are half-assed and are more of an attempt to give some explanation for laziness on FO3's part.

Hub introduced bottlecaps as a practical currency in its region, but not as a permanent measure. NCR dollar devaluing bottlecap is absolutely logical and practical since money cannot be made just anywhere, and bottlecaps can. Well, not anywhere, but with proper tools counterfeits can be made far easier than you can counterfeit actual money.

Click to expand...

I'd argue it's a helluva lot easier to print money than make bottlecaps.

However, the biggest problems pertains to the "various regions". There is no logic or reasoning that can explain how bottlecaps have, simultaneously, appeared as a currency throughout post-War America. Even Mr. House's explanation that his predictions about bottlecap becoming a standard are half-assed and are more of an attempt to give some explanation for laziness on FO3's part.

Click to expand...

And yet gold became a valuable currency throughout the world. It's a matter of rarity, appreciation, and use.

Why?, The NCR are the only nation in the current Fallout world that show a realistic rate of rebuilding, why break them up for no good reason?

I'd argue it's a helluva lot easier to print money than make bottlecaps.

Click to expand...

Let me put it this way:

During Pre-War times Bottlecaps were mass produced in factories to put on top of Nuka Cola bottles. They were designed to be easy to create in factories.

Most types of paper money are designed in such a way that there is something unique about them(A watermark, a see through part, ect.), making them hard to copy.

And yet gold became a valuable currency throughout the world. It's a matter of rarity, appreciation, and use.

Click to expand...

Precious metals only become currencies because they have other uses. If someone gave you a handful of Gold or Silver, you could easily turn it in to a necklace or something. These metals became currencies because they were sought after for other uses.

And besides, there's a reason they aren't still used as currency today, and that's because people realised that fiat money was much more efficient. Rather than having to carry round tons of metal and having to weigh them individually, having written notes with certain values given by banks is far more efficient.

Same logic applies to Fallout. People aren't just going to carry around several hundred Bottlecaps in there pockets forever and ever. The NCR introducing dollars makes it far more practical

But yes, I just like it and think it adds flavor to Fallout.

Click to expand...

Why?, It's just a trope that's become associated with the franchise.

Yes it gave the first game a unique edge to it, but the point of Fallout isn't to find what makes the universe unique and copy it forever until it kills the reason for it being there in the first place. The point of fallout is that the universe moves on, times change. Just because something was a cool idea in the first game does not mean it should be that way forever.

Why?, The NCR are the only nation in the current Fallout world that show a realistic rate of rebuilding, why break them up for no good reason?

Click to expand...

As a statement humanity isn't going to rebuild. It's going to be like this forever. Basically, to add a bit more grim and dark to the world. I think NCR makes things too hunky dory in the Western Wasteland when it should really be a struggle to survive.

Mind you, I don't mind city-states but an entire country? No. That's not what I think Fallout should have.

Mind you, I don't mind city-states but an entire country? No. That's not what I think Fallout should have.

It's a preference mind you rather than an objective fact.

Click to expand...

Preferences are fair, but I still think you're missing the point here.
Fallout is about survival, but it is also about rebuilding and building new civilization in post-apocalyptic world. The first game defined this pretty clearly, though I admit that even by the time of Fallout 2 some elements of the original vision were lost.

However, while break-up of NCR is not impossible, breaking up just for the sake of making the setting more grim doesn't really work...nor is there a connection between state break-up and grim setting.

Besides, NCR is already pretty "dark", despite its external appearance. It's a country that is built upon the legacy of the Old World countries, those same countries who brought the world to the state of nuclear holocaust, and is repeating the same mistakes from before, again and again.

Not sure what resource these new society that emerge will use to rebuild itself, as the world of fallout is pretty much dried up. As research suggest that we will reach peak minerals as early as 2030s, and considering how inefficient the pre-world was, this could be worse by 2077. Combined with most people are farmers, its basically feudalism in post apocalyptic world.

Preference aside, I still think it is stupid to break the NCR apart just to make the setting more grim and dark. I've said before to Phipps and I'll say it again here. Making such an event occur for the sake of one's preference is nonsensical and should be disregarded in a suggestion box if it does pop up. Instead, the break up should occur if the writers (not Bethesda, they'll be too obsessed with adding 'magic' or memes into Fallout) wanted to explore more notions and ideas for the setting (an unrelated idea would be; once a post-War nation on one continent becomes larger, would they attempt to reach out to other continents to determine if there are available lands beyond?)

I think a logical idea for a Fallout game to explore would be this. What happens when the new society reaches a point that requires resources that are insufficient? What will they use? Do the people in the Fallout setting still primarily use petroleum based generators or traditional power plants (like Hoover Dam) for their electricity or is there more to it (like the power plant in Gecko)?

I mean I'm not entirely sure if the people of the Wasteland are capable of making more fuel sources for larger nations. It would be interesting to see what the people of the setting (or rather citizens of modernized nations like the NCR) would do i.e continue the research of pre-War scientists attempting to create a renewable fuel source, start expanding and annexing into other territories for their potentially untapped resources, society begins to collapse again like the pre-War days as unrest stemming from amenities lost due to decreasing resources etc.

As a statement humanity isn't going to rebuild. It's going to be like this forever. Basically, to add a bit more grim and dark to the world. I think NCR makes things too hunky dory in the Western Wasteland when it should really be a struggle to survive.

Mind you, I don't mind city-states but an entire country? No. That's not what I think Fallout should have.

It's a preference mind you rather than an objective fact.

Click to expand...

Can only imagine how well-written your fanfic book is with logic like this.

You can only survive for so long, then you either die or begin thrive.

But that's completely misunderstanding what Fallout is supposed to be about.

Look at 1 and 2 and you'll see that the world is rebuilding and changing. The games were never intended to remain stagnant forever and ever, that's just completely besides the point.

Click to expand...

Stagnation isn't the point as you can have countless different kind of civilizations emerge in the Wasteland without ever actually overcoming the apocalypse or ensuring stability. Basically, I'm going with Chris Avellone that the world is getting too civilized with NCR and keeping things from that point is a good idea.

For example, having 15 different weird cities in NCR's former territory is better than having one single state.

Why?, It's been 200 years. People shouldn't still be living in shacks and struggling to get by that long after.

Click to expand...

Like I said, it's my preference it never gets better. At least until all of the radiation has died out and the salvaged world is completely gone.

Preferences are fair, but I still think you're missing the point here.
Fallout is about survival, but it is also about rebuilding and building new civilization in post-apocalyptic world. The first game defined this pretty clearly, though I admit that even by the time of Fallout 2 some elements of the original vision were lost.

Click to expand...

No, I entirely know what the point is about "exploring post-apocalypse civilizations" indicates. The thing is that I agree with Chris Avellone in terms of my own preference. It's like The Wolf Among Us and Fables. The Wolf Among Us is subtly different from Fables despite the same characters and setting due to doubling down on the Noir Detective elements versus the Fantasy ones (as well as
making the characters more likable).

I prefer a grimmer, darker Fallout even as I enjoy the humorous sci-fi elements a great deal. This isn't me saying how Fallout was intended to be by the creators but saying how I'd like to see it go. Don't confuse my preferences for interpretation of how the games were envisioned. I'm not that arrogant.

I just would like to see NCR broken up because I think it'd be cool to deal with the fallout.

*rimshot*

However, while break-up of NCR is not impossible, breaking up just for the sake of making the setting more grim doesn't really work...nor is there a connection between state break-up and grim setting.

Click to expand...

No, it does however mean that order and stability won't necessarily flow from NCR to the rest of the USA. It also means that we'd get some interesting potential stories like dealing with the people of NCR in a Civil War, how the cities who were apart of it deal with the failure of the state, and other struggles.

Besides, NCR is already pretty "dark", despite its external appearance. It's a country that is built upon the legacy of the Old World countries, those same countries who brought the world to the state of nuclear holocaust, and is repeating the same mistakes from before, again and again.

Can only imagine how well-written your fanfic book is with logic like this.

Click to expand...

You can only survive for so long, then you either die or begin thrive.

Click to expand...

Humans always die. They also thrive then flounder. History does not move in an upward pattern. It moves in a zig-zag.

Cthulhu Armageddon's themes vs. Fallout

While I certainly drew inspiration from Fallout 1 and 2 when creating Cthulhu Armageddon, the world of H.P. Lovecraft's universe (and Robert E. Howard's Hyboria since my characters fight back against Lovecraftian abominations plus a little Stephen King on the side) is one which is fundamentally different from the original developers' California.

Humanity didn't destroy itself in Cthulhu Armageddon. It was destroyed in a natural disaster (as much as a natural disaster of the Great Old Ones rising can be). The thing about the Great Old Ones is that they and the creatures like them are now in charge of the world or at least its apex species. Humanity is ill-adapted to the new environment, new predator races, and new conditions.

There's no retaking the world from them because reality bends to their will and they don't even notice humanity and could wipe them away with a thought. 100 years later, humanity is in very real danger of going extinct and a pressing theme is how they deal with the acknowledgement of that or what measures they'd be willing to sink to in order to survive.

The protagonist, John Booth doesn't care about humanity's survival. He's accepted that's out of his hands and is fairly certain that humanity is doomed but that doesn't really change anything in his life. His partner, Mercury, by contrast, is much more focused on the idea humans can survive and figure out a way to thrive. The antagonist, Alan Ward, is a man who believes the only possible survival for humanity is in transhumanism. In other words, if you can't beat the monsters, join them. He may also be right but is survival worth it if you have to sacrifice your humanity?

One of the interesting conflicts of the book is John doesn't care that Ward is possibly the only salvation for humanity as Ward killed his friends. Therefore he has to die, regardless of the cost. He has that Joel from The Last of Us sensibility which I admire.

You say you prefer a grimmer draker Fallout and that post-war civilizations are too much for you and must disolved whilst having a thread saying Mothership Zeta is the best DLC for Fallout 3 and the thing you love about Fallout is "pew pew".
Lack of consistency much?

Stagnation isn't the point as you can have countless different kind of civilizations emerge in the Wasteland without ever actually overcoming the apocalypse or ensuring stability. Basically, I'm going with Chris Avellone that the world is getting too civilized with NCR and keeping things from that point is a good idea.

For example, having 15 different weird cities in NCR's former territory is better than having one single state.

Click to expand...

Alternatively, you could just have various different nations appearing all over the US, rather than having multiple identical anarchic wastelands.

If you broke up the NCR, it would just make it seem like all of the world is completely uncivilized and anarchic, which is more boring than a world becoming civilized IMHO.

You don't have to have the world overcome the apocalypse, just have several struggling nations perhaps warring among themselves. Or tribes, or whatever.

You say you prefer a grimmer draker Fallout and that post-war civilizations are too much for you and must disolved whilst having a thread saying Mothership Zeta is the best DLC for Fallout 3 and the thing you love about Fallout is "pew pew".
Lack of consistency much?

Click to expand...

You can like multiple things, Vergil.

I don't want Caesar's Legion to win and the next game to be set in NCR's crucified remains where women are chattle slavery. I don't want everything to be nuked like the Divide either. Instead, I'd just like for the world to be a good deal more chaotic and anarchic with NCR's "plot" if you will showing that they were unable to avoid the mistakes of the past and fell into the same traps as previous ones.

You could still have fun wacky Hollywood Detective stories in an independent Boneyard or Vault City for example.

Alternatively, you could just have various different nations appearing all over the US, rather than having multiple identical anarchic wastelands.

If you broke up the NCR, it would just make it seem like all of the world is completely uncivilized and anarchic, which is more boring than a world becoming civilized IMHO.

Click to expand...

To each their own.

You don't have to have the world overcome the apocalypse, just have several struggling nations perhaps warring among themselves. Or tribes, or whatever.

Click to expand...

It's only my opinion.

Personally, I was also afraid of this happening with Arthur Maxson and the BoS with the idea they were going to build an empire along the East Coast. That's part of the reason why I chose to blow them up as I figured the Institute would have far less reason to conquer and erect a gigantic feudal empire. I remember when people were thinking of having the BOS and NCR forces fight each other and that strikes me as....silly.

My next ideal Fallout game would be New Orleans followed by the Boneyard. Only one of which would require NCR breaking up anyway.

But not want two completely opposite things to be the primary focus in the exact same series at the same time, dumbass.

Do you want Fallout to be a grimdark edgelord fest or a tryhard goofy mindless shooter? Because so far all you've done is contridict yourself.
"I want a grimmer Fallout where everything is eternal, painful anarchy!"
"I want a goofy comedic Fallout that doesnt take itself seriously!"
Pick one because all you've done so far is flip flop between both constantly.

But not want two completely opposite things to be the primary focus in the exact same series at the same time, dumbass.

Do you want Fallout to be a grimdark edgelord fest or a tryhard goofy mindless shooter? Because so far all you've done is contridict yourself.
"I want a grimmer Fallout where everything is eternal, painful anarchy!"
"I want a goofy comedic Fallout that doesnt take itself seriously!"
Pick one because all you've done so far is flip flop between both constantly.

The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency.

Click to expand...

Ah, the straw in this one is powerful.

What I like in Fallout is fun exploration of ruins, weird locations, and wilderness. I like good senses of humor, oddball science fiction, and personal storytelling. If I were to describe my ideal Fallout game it would be a chaotic Wild West style land with lots of personal tragedies but humor to keep it from getting too dark. Basically Red Dead Redemption meets Fallout.

So you prefer a grimmer dark Fallout in this thread yet your favourite DLC is the "lols so randhm and WaCkY xDDDDDDD ALIEUMZ XDDD" one that shows absolutely ZERO of those qualities and you say your love of Fallout (a series which you have a serial missunderstanding of) can be summed up by mindless shooting and a reddit-tier "le gamerz ;p" image that doesnt represent the qualities you say your "ideal fallout" would be here. Yea very dark, very gritty.